Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 18/532,097

Magnetic Tool Carrier

Final Rejection §103§112
Filed
Dec 07, 2023
Examiner
PERREAULT, ANDREW D
Art Unit
3735
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
2 (Final)
46%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 2m
To Grant
64%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 46% of resolved cases
46%
Career Allow Rate
457 granted / 987 resolved
-23.7% vs TC avg
Strong +18% interview lift
Without
With
+18.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 2m
Avg Prosecution
59 currently pending
Career history
1046
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
44.0%
+4.0% vs TC avg
§102
24.2%
-15.8% vs TC avg
§112
27.8%
-12.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 987 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. Claim(s) 1-8, 10, 13-14, 16, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McEwen (4469256) in view of Roberts (20140182088). McEwen discloses: 1. A carrying bag (figs 1-7), comprising: a first compartment (adjacent 78 in fig 6) including a first opening (opening adjacent zipper) to facilitate inserting and removing items from said first compartment (capable of performing the above intended use);a second compartment, coupled to said first compartment (compartment between 86, 76 in fig 6) and including a second opening (opening adjacent zipper) configured to facilitate the insertion of said magnet carrier into said second compartment and the removal of said magnet carrier from said second compartment through said second opening (capable of performing the above intended use); and wherein said second compartment is sized to accept said magnet carrier within said second compartment and disposed to facilitate magnetic engagement of said discrete magnets with a ferromagnetic surface outside of said carrying bag through a first wall of said second compartment (capable of performing the above intended use); with the exception of the following which is disclosed by Roberts: a magnet carrier including a substrate (figs 1-2, with portion inset that holds magnet in fig 1-7) and a set of discrete magnets, each discrete magnet fixed to said substrate (paragraph 56), and said magnet carrier is removably disposed within compartment (as in figs 1-7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify McEwen in view of Roberts (by placing the insert within the compartment of the bag) in order to more securely attach the device in order to prevent unintentional removal or injury. McEwen discloses unless indicated otherwise: 2. The carrying bag of Claim 1, wherein: said second compartment is substantially rectangular and has a first length and a second length (shape with two lengths as shown for example in fig 7); said first length of said second compartment is greater than said second length of said second compartment (the above is the description of a rectangle of which the shape is provided above); and said first length of said second compartment is greater than the length of said second opening (the zipper controls the size of the opening and therefore provides the above). 3. The carrying bag of Claim 2, further comprising a zipper fixed to said second compartment adjacent said second opening to selectively open and close said second opening (as shown in fig 6). 4. The carrying bag of Claim 1, further comprising a zipper fixed to said second compartment adjacent said second opening to facilitate the opening and closing of said second opening (as shown in fig 6). 5. The carrying bag of Claim 1, wherein: said carrying bag further comprises a second wall disposed between said first compartment and said second compartment (86); and said first wall is disposed between said second compartment and a bottom surface of said carrying bag (as in fig 6). 6. The carrying bag of Claim 5, wherein said magnet carrier simultaneously contacts said first wall and said second wall when inserted into said second compartment (the Combined Reference already discloses the above by placing the element within the second compartment). 7. The carrying bag of Claim 1, wherein said first wall is pliable (the device is flexible). 8. The carrying bag of Claim 7, wherein said first wall is formed from polyester fabric. . The Office notes that the prior does not appear to disclose the specific materials. Though it may provide the above, the Office notes It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide a polyester fabric in order to provide a specific material that provides the desired strength and flexibility characteristics. Further, the Office notes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the material because it has been held that selection of a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use was an obvious extension of the prior teaching. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. 10. The carrying bag of Claim 1, wherein said substrate of said magnet carrier is rigid (Roberts figs 1-2). 13. The carrying bag of Claim 1, wherein said substrate is substantially the same shape as a bottom of said carrying bag. The Office notes that is well within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the shape to accommodate another shape, such as to improve the surface area of attachment and thus improve attachment. Further, the Office notes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the material because it has been held that selection of a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use was an obvious extension of the prior teaching. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. 14. The carrying bag of Claim 1, wherein said substrate and a bottom of said carrying bag are substantially rectangular. The Office notes that is well within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the shape to accommodate another shape, such as to improve the surface area of attachment and thus improve attachment. Further, the Office notes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the material because it has been held that selection of a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use was an obvious extension of the prior teaching. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. 16. The carrying bag of Claim 1, wherein said set of discrete magnets includes a plurality of discrete annular magnets (Roberts fig 2a). . 19. The carrying bag of Claim 1, wherein: said second compartment includes two long sides and two short sides and said second opening is formed in one of said short sides (figs 6-8). Claim 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Combined Reference as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hsieh (5490607) The Combined Reference discloses the claimed invention above with the exception of the following which is disclosed by Hsieh: 2 a set of magnet seats (Seats for magnets in fig 3 such as adjacent “12”); 3each magnet of said set of discrete magnets is disposed in a 4respective one of said set of magnet seats (as shown in fig 3 with 13); and 5each magnet seat of said set of magnet seats is spaced apart from one another (fig 13). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the Combined Reference (by Hsieh) in order to provide an increased range of attachment to attach the device to various surfaces while also providing the ability to control release and attachment. Potentially Allowable Subject Matter Claim 1 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action. The Office notes that all of the above is required. As for example, including all of 4304, 4500, 4602, 4604, 4600, 4306 in combination with the discrete set of annular magnets and the elements of claim 1. Applicant should correct all other 112 issues and also not create new 112 issues (i.e. not create duplicate subject matter in the claims such as between newly written claim 1 with the dependent claim). Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Conclusion Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW D PERREAULT whose telephone number is (571)270-5427. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:00am-5:30pm. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anthony Stashick can be reached at (571)272-4561. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /ANDREW D PERREAULT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3735
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 07, 2023
Application Filed
Jan 31, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112
Jun 03, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jun 03, 2025
Response Filed
Dec 16, 2025
Response Filed
Mar 13, 2026
Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12545486
EDIBLE CAN HOLDER WITH FLAPS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12522401
CONVERTIBLE MODULAR STORAGE, MANAGEMENT AND UTILIZATION SYSTEM AND METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 13, 2026
Patent 12514389
Partitioned Tableware
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 06, 2026
Patent 12495921
Bowl and Method of Forming a Bowl
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 16, 2025
Patent 12492040
STACKABLE AND NESTABLE CONTAINER
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 09, 2025
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
46%
Grant Probability
64%
With Interview (+18.1%)
3y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 987 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month